check_usage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Check' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and 'configured OtterSnap key' clarifies that the tool relies on pre-existing configuration rather than per-call credentials. It stops short of explicitly stating that it consumes no quota, but the wording makes that unlikely.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence that fronts the action ('Check remaining renders and quota') and includes only the essential scope information. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, parameterless usage-check tool, the description covers the core purpose and scope. It does not detail the return shape or format of the quota information, and since no output schema exists, a bit more return-value context would have made it complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero parameters, and the description helps explain why: the key is 'configured' rather than passed in. This adds useful meaning beyond the empty schema and matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the verb ('Check'), the resource ('remaining renders and quota'), and the scope ('configured OtterSnap key'). This distinguishes it from the sibling rendering/extraction tools, which produce outputs rather than report usage.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It conveys a clear context for use: the agent should call this when it needs to know remaining render capacity for the configured key. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but as a zero-parameter status/usage tool the context is largely self-evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.